[1] Speaking in the presence of Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim, a Kelantan religious scholar recently declared — in what was widely read as an endorsement of the prime minister — that it is haram for Muslims to overthrow a just government.[1]
[2] A rebuttal came swiftly. Khairuddin Aman Razali, religious adviser to Deputy Prime Minister Ahmad Zahid Hamidi, argued that a no-confidence vote is “a democratic process that is consistent with Islamic principles”, and that every government action must be “objectively assessed against the Islamic yardsticks of justice and oppression”.[2]
[3] His defence of democracy is welcome. But notice what is missing from both sides of the exchange: the constitution. The question of whether a government may be changed is being argued entirely as a matter of halal and haram, of rival scholars and competing edicts. The one document that actually answers the question barely rates a mention.
[4] And it does answer it. A government holds office because it commands the confidence of the Dewan Rakyat, and keeps it only for as long as that confidence lasts. Its mandate ends when Parliament is dissolved and the people vote again. Seeking to replace a government through a confidence vote or at the ballot box is neither halal nor haram. It is constitutional. That should be the end of the matter.
[5] When even the defenders of democracy feel obliged to justify it in religious terms, the constitution has been quietly demoted — from final word to supporting witness. Consider where this leads. In 2008, and again in 2020, Anwar himself sought to replace the sitting government by claiming the support of a majority of MPs — in September 2020, a “strong, formidable, convincing” majority.[3] He was doing precisely what the constitution permits. By the reasoning now on offer, would that, in retrospect, be haram?
[6] No one has played this game more nimbly than PAS president Abdul Hadi Awang. In 1981, his Amanat Haji Hadi was widely understood to brand UMNO and its supporters infidels.[4] In 2019, when it suited him, PAS embraced the same UMNO in the Muafakat Nasional pact.[5]
[7] When the government recently signed a confidence and supply agreement with a group of opposition MPs, Hadi called it “an approach of the Dajjal”.[6] Yet in 2021, when PAS sat in Ismail Sabri’s government, that government signed a strikingly similar memorandum with Pakatan Harapan to secure its budget.[7] No one in PAS spoke of the Dajjal then.
[8] There is a deeper inconsistency here. UMNO, PAS and even Pakatan Harapan leaders are quick to invoke the constitution when it suits them — on the position of Islam, on the special position of the Malays, on the role of the Rulers. Yet on the most basic question of all, who governs and how governments change, they are content to let the pulpit pronounce. The constitution cannot be supreme on some days and secondary on others. Its authority does not come à la carte.
[9] This matters because the constitution is the one framework all Malaysians share. Religious verdicts, however sincerely offered, speak with authority only to some — and, as this very exchange shows, they do not even agree among themselves. One scholar finds toppling a government haram; another finds it consistent with Islamic principles. If political legitimacy rests on such verdicts, it rests on whoever has the more convenient scholar.
[10] The constitution, by contrast, gives one answer, binding on everyone. It was negotiated at Merdeka as a compact among all our communities, and it declares itself the supreme law of the Federation. That supremacy is what makes it a compact rather than a concession.
[11] Many Muslims share the concern, not least the Sultan of Selangor, who has repeatedly warned against turning mosques and surau into political platforms.[8] Religious leaders have every right to speak about justice, honesty and the responsibilities of those who govern. But the pulpit must not become a court of political legitimacy.
[12] When religion is drawn into partisan battles, the believer is no longer invited to examine conscience, uphold justice or show mercy; he or she is simply instructed to choose a side. And the constitution, which ought to be the final word for every Malaysian, is reduced to a footnote. That does not strengthen faith or democracy. It diminishes both.
[Dennis Ignatius |Kuala Lumpur | 05 November 2026]
[1] ‘Overthrowing just govt is haram’: Kelantan religious scholar backs Anwar, Malaysiakini, 1 November 2026.
[2] Haram to topple a govt? Zahid’s religious adviser begs to differ, cites democracy, Malaysiakini, 2 November 2026.
[3] Anwar: Sept 16 takeover failed after Speaker rejected special session, FMT, 7 February 2017; Anwar says has ‘strong, formidable, convincing’ majority to form government, NST, 23 September 2020.
[4] Umno-Pas redefined: Four-decade controversy ends?, NST, 11 March 2019.
[5] Umno-PAS alliance for benefit of Najib, Zahid and their supporters, veteran newsman says, FMT, 15 September 2019.
[6] Distribute tax revenue equally regardless of political affiliation, says Hadi in criticising CSA, The Star, 3 November 2026; Hadi brands CSA with opposition MPs ‘Dajjal-like’, FMT, 3 November 2026.
[7] Govt, PH ink historic MoU, NST, 13 September 2021.
[8] Selangor sultan again warns lawmakers not to politicise mosques, surau, The Vibes, 13 March 2023.
You must be logged in to post a comment.